3 minutes ago, Smokesdawg said:

More evidence of corruption, cronyism and absolute failure of this administration to prepare for this pandemic  

"The Trump administration's former vaccine chief repeatedly warned top officials about shortage of critical resources and supplies for fighting the coronavirus as early as January but the administration took no action, according to a whistleblower complaint from Rick Bright, the former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority who was ousted by Trump officials.

He also said he was pressured to "award lucrative contracts for... drugs even though they lacked scientific merit."

 

 

No one saw this coming...what more could he have done...China!

And the fat man is on a trip to Arizona. White House aides are reporting that the president is "antsy”.  We are all antsy. 
Well, he wasn’t wearing a mask when he arrived on AF1. Nor was anyone else. Plus it looked like he was shaking hands. He doesn’t live in our reality. 

Just think of how many people need to be out and support a presidential trip???? How many of those are being put in unnecessary risk? 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

No one saw this coming...what more could he have done...China!

Trump is a dummy, but I have some pragmatic questions regarding this pandemic:

1. Has an effective vaccine been developed yet?

2. Are there any effective anti-viral drugs that are defeating this virus?

3. Are there any COVID-19 patients being turned away from hospitals in the US due to a lack of resources the govt is responsible for providing?

4. To keep the # of new cases manageable for the health care system, should shelter in place remain fully in effect until a vaccine is developed and mass produced?

5. If not, then isn't a 2nd wave of infections guaranteed because the virus is now a permanent part of our world?

6. Did the slow federal response under the Trump administration do tangible harm and if so what was it, and how was it precisely measured?

7. What would a better response have been? Shutting down earlier? Something else?

45 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

totally...no way the party nominating joe biden would support a white male.

It's cute there are some hardcore dems that are still in denial that the party is openly hostile to white men.

4 minutes ago, Kz! said:

It's cute there are some hardcore dems that are still in denial that the party is openly hostile to white men.

9 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Trump is a dummy, but I have some pragmatic questions regarding this pandemic:

1. Has an effective vaccine been developed yet?

2. Are there any effective anti-viral drugs that are defeating this virus?

3. Are there any COVID-19 patients being turned away from hospitals in the US due to a lack of resources the govt is responsible for providing?

4. To keep the # of new cases manageable for the health care system, should shelter in place remain fully in effect until a vaccine is developed and mass produced?

5. If not, then isn't a 2nd wave of infections guaranteed because the virus is now a permanent part of our world?

6. Did the slow federal response under the Trump administration do tangible harm and if so what was it, and how was it precisely measured?

7. What would a better response have been? Shutting down earlier? Something else?

I have no medical insight, so I'll just answer these best I can since you asked me.  Here goes.

1. No

2. Nothing is defeating the virus right now that I know of.  We have drugs that can treat the symptoms.

3. No, but patients aren't turned away from any hospital ever.  It's both the law and I would guess it would conflict with the hippocratic oath.  But the states have still been short on supplies/equipment they need to effectively treat the patients they take in.

4. No.  Because that could be years away.  It's unrealistic and impossible to keep people sheltered that long.  But until the end of May was the date the initial models took into account when the projections were coming in much lower.

5. I don't know.  And no one else does either, since it's a new strain.

6. It forced us into the across the board shelter-in-place strategy, since we couldn't test in mass and trace the outbreak/rely on our populace to wear masks/protect themselves.  With heavy testing on the front end, we could have mitigated what we're going through right now.  The shelter in place has a pretty obvious tangible effect on the economy and the lack of testing/a coherent strategy can also be measured in loss of life.  Also, you could simply look at a side by side comparison between our situation and the situation in other countries if you want a broad view.

7. I basically covered this above.  Mass testing/contact tracing.  Then specifically targeting your shutdowns and containing it.  Also, every state should have been mandating masks.  Most still aren't. 

21 minutes ago, Kz! said:

It's cute there are some hardcore dems that are still in denial that the party is openly hostile to white men.

The final two candidates in the Dem primary were old white men, Kzemosabe!

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The final two candidates in the Dem primary were old white men, Kzemosabe!

yabbit they had  women & poc in the race too...so they hate white menzz! 

Damn you’re adorable. 😂

21 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I have no medical insight, so I'll just answer these best I can since you asked me.  Here goes.

1. No

2. Nothing is defeating the virus right now that I know of.  We have drugs that can treat the symptoms.

3. No, but patients aren't turned away from any hospital ever.  It's both the law and I would guess it would conflict with the hippocratic oath.  But the states have still been short on supplies/equipment they need to effectively treat the patients they take in.

4. No.  Because that could be years away.  It's unrealistic and impossible to keep people sheltered that long.  But until the end of May was the date the initial models took into account when the projections were coming in much lower.

5. I don't know.  And no one else does either, since it's a new strain.

6. It forced us into the across the board shelter-in-place strategy, since we couldn't test in mass and trace the outbreak/rely on our populace to wear masks/protect themselves.  With heavy testing on the front end, we could have mitigated what we're going through right now.  The shelter in place has a pretty obvious tangible effect on the economy and the lack of testing/a coherent strategy can also be measured in loss of life.  Also, you could simply look at a side by side comparison between our situation and the situation in other countries if you want a broad view.

7. I basically covered this above.  Mass testing/contact tracing.  Then specifically targeting your shutdowns and containing it.  Also, every state should have been mandating masks.  Most still aren't. 

I agree with most of your answers.

The mass testing seems like fantasy since it's still not available to us even now and mass contact tracing is only as good as the info people give. Then there's the problem of testing someone who is going to die from it doesn't save them. People are dying because they can't beat it even with medical treatment. Sad as it is, this virus isn't ever going away, so some people will die from it every year from now on, just like the flu. A vaccine will limit that number, but zero isn't happening any time soon. 

So ineffective testing capacity and spotty contact tracing doesn't contain it. Also, non-air tight surgical masks and the like protect others from your coughing & sneezing, not you from what is floating in the air that you may breath in from the sides of your mask. It's why social distancing is also important.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

He's not wrong. I'm a registered Republican who thinks Donald Trump is an imbecile, embarrassment and not a true conservative. If I lived in a swing state, I'd vote Biden unless he picked Liz Warren as VP -- I will not have any part of elevating her brand of insanity that rejects all economic rationality. I would either stay or home, or vote Amash (which I will be doing since I live in CA).

He should, and I think will, pick either Harris or Abrams. Warren allows Trump to use the socialism card much more effectively.

Harris would be a bad pick. Abrams, I have literally no idea about. From a state senator to VP? That seems risky. I LOL at the rationale in hating Warren, Bernie, etc. though. We push awful conservative ideas for the past 40 years and it has about the same rationality as their. Tax cuts that pay for themselves. Supercharge the economy trickle down. Yea, no wonder people look at the system and see it for what it is.

*Edit* An interesting an kind of out of the box pick would be Mayor Pete. I'm not enthralled with him, but he isn't some geriatric retread or token minority. He's not from a "liberal" state and might play well as a center-right type in middle America. Helps that is isn't straight, served in the military, well educated. VP is a do nothing place anyway so in reality none of it matters unless Biden (or Trump) drops dead.

32 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I agree with most of your answers.

The mass testing seems like fantasy since it's still not available to us even now and mass contact tracing is only as good as the info people give. Then there's the problem of testing someone who is going to die from it doesn't save them. People are dying because they can't beat it even with medical treatment. Sad as it is, this virus isn't ever going away, so some people will die from it every year from now on, just like the flu. A vaccine will limit that number, but zero isn't happening any time soon. 

So ineffective testing capacity and spotty contact tracing doesn't contain it. Also, non-air tight surgical masks and the like protect others from your coughing & sneezing, not you from what is floating in the air that you may breath in from the sides of your mask. It's why social distancing is also important.

You should read PhillyTerp's posts from his father.  I'd imagine he'd disagree strongly with your take here since he's really bullish on masks.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

You should read PhillyTerp's posts from his father.  I'd imagine he'd disagree strongly with your take here since he's really bullish on masks.

I'm bullish on masks as well. They offer some protection for the wearer, but it's about preventing the spread from people who don't know they are infected to others. To be 100% safe, you need a closed system with it's own air supply. 

There are many variables to the probability equation for transmission but the lowest chance is when everyone wears a mask.

So, now that businesses are opening, and masks are all the rage...when do the robberies begin?

4 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Oh the days when our military was the weakest it ever was, but we had transgendered soldiers so thats what matters

Nothing says weakness like calling American foolish to kowtow to the Russians. Tranny soldiers are tougher than Trump!

28 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Nothing says weakness like calling American foolish to kowtow to the Russians. Tranny soldiers are tougher than Trump!

You never heard an infantryman with sand in his V complain about a bone spur.

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

I agree with most of your answers.

The mass testing seems like fantasy since it's still not available to us even now and mass contact tracing is only as good as the info people give. Then there's the problem of testing someone who is going to die from it doesn't save them. People are dying because they can't beat it even with medical treatment. Sad as it is, this virus isn't ever going away, so some people will die from it every year from now on, just like the flu. A vaccine will limit that number, but zero isn't happening any time soon. 

So ineffective testing capacity and spotty contact tracing doesn't contain it. Also, non-air tight surgical masks and the like protect others from your coughing & sneezing, not you from what is floating in the air that you may breath in from the sides of your mask. It's why social distancing is also important.

I want to circle back on this since I missed it the first time.
 

It’s only a fantasy because the administration has failed so spectacularly here. It hasn’t been a fantasy in South Korea, where they tested infinitely more per capita than we did as the virus hit.  Now you can say that they had a response at the ready because of their proximity to outbreaks in the past but we had a response team ready too, post-Ebola, until the administration disbanded it because Obama Bad.  SK fast-tracked testing and got more executed in a week than we got in a month. And those were weeks where fast-action mattered. Now it’s all just catch-up. 

4 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah.  Especially since Biden already said he is picking a woman in the last debate.

Any sliver of room he had for not picking a woman VEEP disappeared completely with the Tara Reade accusations.  It will 130% for sure be a woman now.  I'd bet my left nut against a $100.

15 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I want to circle back on this since I missed it the first time.
 

It’s only a fantasy because the administration has failed so spectacularly here. It hasn’t been a fantasy in South Korea, where they tested infinitely more per capita than we did as the virus hit.  Now you can say that they had a response at the ready because of their proximity to outbreaks in the past but we had a response team ready too, post-Ebola, until the administration disbanded it because Obama Bad.  SK fast-tracked testing and got more executed in a week than we got in a month. And those were weeks where fast-action mattered. Now it’s all just catch-up. 

Yeah, South Korea lives every day in the shadow of the next Chinese outbreak. They're always ready for it.

Highlighted part - That's only partly true. Some of the pandemic response team members were reassigned to duties that included pandemic response. Was it as robust as under Obama, no it wasn't. Was it completely disbanded functionally? No, not completely.

We've been dealing with this for a couple months now and estimates say that the millions of test kits needed won't be ready until the end of the 2nd quarter at best. Even if the Fed had pushed the panic button back in January, we'd just now be getting the tests out to the public in the necessary numbers.

Did the Administration drag their feet? Yes. If they didn't, would it have made a big difference? I'm not so sure.

5 hours ago, Outlaw said:

Rand Paul.

I kid, I kid.  Seriously, I think someone like a Tammy Duckworth...senator, a woman of color, and a war veteran who is also blatantly moderate could swing me yet still check enough boxes for Biden with the left.

If the dude wasn't 1,000 yrs old and in the midst of a pandemic that crushes seniors, I certainly believe that Duckworth or Stacey Abrams would be the top 2 choices.  But if he is going to win purely on the "safe" card, then he has to go with a VEEP who can both share the worlkload and step in if need be.

 

So I don't see any way it isn't going to be one of the senators; Warren/Harris/Klobuchar and the safest of the safe picks is Harris hands down.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

If the dude wasn't 1,000 yrs old and in the midst of a pandemic that crushes seniors, I certainly believe that Duckworth or Stacey Abrams would be the top 2 choices.  But if he is going to win purely on the "safe" card, then he has to go with a VEEP who can both share the world and step in if need be.

 

So I don't see any way it isn't going to be one of the senators; Warren/Harris/Klobuchar and the safest of the safe picks is Harris hands down.

Duckworth is a Senator. 

5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

If the dude wasn't 1,000 yrs old and in the midst of a pandemic that crushes seniors, I certainly believe that Duckworth or Stacey Abrams would be the top 2 choices.  But if he is going to win purely on the "safe" card, then he has to go with a VEEP who can both share the worlkload and step in if need be.

 

So I don't see any way it isn't going to be one of the senators; Warren/Harris/Klobuchar and the safest of the safe picks is Harris hands down.

Whitmer as a governor would be able to step in if need be. I still think she's a strong pick. 

8 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Duckworth is a Senator. 

I swear to God I thought she was a Rep.

25 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Any sliver of room he had for not picking a woman VEEP disappeared completely with the Tara Reade accusations.  It will 130% for sure be a woman now.  I'd bet my left nut against a $100.

Pretty sure when he said he was going to pick a woman that sealed it.  The Tara Reade stuff is a non-issue.

14 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I swear to God I thought she was a Rep.

She was until 2017